Best Singles Band

[Worm]

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap...view/1460/1375. But that's the future. It's both the consequence of globalization and, possibly, an escape from it. You should meet the guy who wrote that, he's really brilliant.

Sounds like he'd be a fun guy to shoot horseshoes with!

"It is a form of progress in that it reveals the democratic and emancipatory potential of new technologies, and the capacity for cultural participation to actualize that potential."

This dream is dying a slow and painful death. I disagree with his conclusions. Rather than a peon like me discussing this with him, I'd pay a few bucks to watch him debate Jaron Lanier on a stage somewhere.

[Worm]

I'm kind of playing Devil's advocate here, but what's the difference between him reforming The Smiths and playing the same songs he already plays consistently every time he tours?

Well, I think that's precisely his own thinking. What, indeed, is the difference? Only this: 100% of a small Solo pie is worth more than a much larger Smiths pie split with one, two, or three other lawnmower parts. Also: no percentage of any pie would pay the cost to replace the damage to his pride. For an artist like Morrissey a Coachella pie of $7 million dollars would only be a pie in the face.

Mmmmmm...pie.

they are just as much Marr's songs as they are Morrissey's

I don't think he believes this. He has actually said, explicitly, Smiths songs are his songs.

In his heart of hearts he knows Johnny was the one true genius he's worked with, and he may still love the guy even after all this time, but up top, in the larger portion of his brain, as far as I can tell, no, he doesn't believe The Smiths songs are anyone's but his.

so it would seem that the sole reason he won't reform is spite towards Mike Joyce, and to perhaps a lesser extent, Andy Rourke. I am not saying I want them to reform, in fact I don't think they should, I'm just bringing up a point. And if that's the case, wasn't he offered a very large sum to play under the moniker of Morrissey/Marr? And High Court conclusion, not necessarily in detail. But from what I understand, the four members of The Smiths all receive equal royalty payments?

I used to know the terms of the settlement. I don't anymore. I'm glad I've forgotten. I just know that Andy Rourke and Mike Joyce are my favorite rhythm section of all time and always, always, always get it in writing.

[Anaesthesine]

That's a groovy anecdote, and I'm sure we've all had similar experiences. I don't really doubt what you're saying. But, again, we come back to defining terms. I won't offer a boring rehash, but if you don't over-analyze the socio-political impact, and you don't take into account technical influence, and you don't trot out the endless statistics testifying to their chart prowess, and you restrict the comparison to an apples-to-apples, straight-up death match between The Smiths and The Beatles as music, purely as music you enjoy...don't The Smiths win? For we few, we happy few, don't The Smiths win? Like, by a landslide?

There's no need to throw "groovy" around; we should all treat each other with respect.

You may decide that I'm now beneath contempt, but I listen to The Beatles as much as I listen to The Smiths. I listen to Morrissey (solo) more than either. So, Morrissey wins!

Well, yes, but I've qualified my opinion by pointing out that others, not I, nurture lofty expectations about The Beatles being "so much more" than a band. I'm trying to address The Beatles in terms others have applied. Hell, I'm trying to use terms that exist in The Beatles' songs, in many cases. Go back over this thread and you'll see that in many places people can't help but talk about The Legend of The Beatles. You and Andrew have spoken in concrete ways about why you like The Beatles, which I acknowledge and respect as completely genuine and unbrainwashed, but you've also spoken in terms of The Legend. I'm not being snarky, honest: even when you were talking about The Beatles purely as a band you couldn't help saying they "advocated for love". So it's The Legend we have to grapple with, meaning taking into account questions above and beyond simple pop craftsmanship. Unavoidably. Because, as I said above, if it's just a narrow question of whether I prefer "Eleanor Rigby", "Paperback Writer", or "Let It Be" to "Reel Around The Fountain", "Cemetry Gates", and "What She Said", it's not even a debate as to which band speaks more profoundly to me, in my time, in my circumstances.

Fair enough. However, The Smiths are regularly referred to as Legendary. Morrissey is an Icon. Fans of both bands are unreasonably infatuated and unrealistically attached. Morrissey could have done so much more...

[Andrewroon]

Fair enough. However, The Smiths are regularly referred to as Legendary. Morrissey is an Icon. Fans of both bands are unreasonably infatuated and unrealistically attached. Morrissey could have done so much more...

*I may get butchered for this, but I think this is because The Smiths made great songs consistently, whereas Morrissey 'solo' consistently is interesting, with amazing lyrics, but the songs and songwriting itself is spotty. If you put on Maladjusted or Ringleader of the Tormentors for someone who is not already converted, in the hopes of convincing them of the beauty of Mozz, they will think you're crazy. It is because, as Worm said a few posts back, Marr is the one true genius Mozz has ever worked with. I fell in love with The Smiths and then got turned on to Morrissey, and I would imagine that many of us had the same experience. I also do think that Morrissey fans are very unrealistic about his solo career. Yes, it's subjective, but I feel like he could release an album with 70 minutes of silence and some fans would hail it as breathtaking. Years of Refusal was a good album, I felt, but I think it's fairly safe to say his last great album will have been Vauxhall

[Worm]

There's no need to throw "groovy" around; we should all treat each other with respect.

No disrespect intended.

[Happy Maudlin]

Fair enough. However, The Smiths are regularly referred to as Legendary. Morrissey is an Icon. Fans of both bands are unreasonably infatuated and unrealistically attached. Morrissey could have done so much more...

I have a slight issue with the Smiths being described as 'legendary'. While the Smiths meant so much to a good amount of people, they certainly don't have the global appeal and pools of power in the music industry that the Beatles wield. By a landslide I prefer the Smiths and actually think they are better than Beatles, but outside of the realm of narrow preferences and staunch subjectivity, I recognize that the Beatles met the criteria of being a 'legendary' band. But I wonder exactly whom defined that criteria to begin with. In this respect, I have issue with the Smiths being considered legendary, for they never made the grade or tried to please anybody. No matter how popular they get, the Smiths will always be consider on the cusps of the commercial world and complete outsiders. A few features on indie film soundtracks is not going to change that for me...

Oh and I wanted to ask this as well-- what exactly could Morrissey have done more? I am very interested in your response, probably because in some respect, I agree with your assertion.

[Anaesthesine]

*I may get butchered for this, but I think this is because The Smiths made great songs consistently, whereas Morrissey 'solo' consistently is interesting, with amazing lyrics, but the songs and songwriting itself is spotty. If you put on Maladjusted or Ringleader of the Tormentors for someone who is not already converted, in the hopes of convincing them of the beauty of Mozz, they will think you're crazy. It is because, as Worm said a few posts back, Marr is the one true genius Mozz has ever worked with. I fell in love with The Smiths and then got turned on to Morrissey, and I would imagine that many of us had the same experience. I also do think that Morrissey fans are very unrealistic about his solo career. Yes, it's subjective, but I feel like he could release an album with 70 minutes of silence and some fans would hail it as breathtaking. Years of Refusal was a good album, I felt, but I think it's fairly safe to say his last great album will have been Vauxhall

I have evidence to the contrary: I played Quarry for a neighbor (my age) who had never heard of The Smiths (strange, I know). He became a HUGE Morrissey fan. He moved away, but Morrissey usually comes up as a topic of conversation when we meet (which isn't often).

I enjoy Morrissey's solo output more these days, which isn't to say that it's in any way superior to The Smiths, but it is a bit more relevant to life as I'm currently living it.

Maladjusted has just enough wonderful songs (B-sides included) that could convert someone, but ROTT would be tough going, it's true.

No disrespect intended.

I was being arch, but there isn't a smiley with one eyebrow up. I will include the appropriate smiley when next I attempt dry humor.

I have a slight issue with the Smiths being described as 'legendary'. While the Smiths meant so much to a good amount of people, they certainly don't have the global appeal and pools of power in the music industry that the Beatles wield. By a landslide I prefer the Smiths and actually think they are better than Beatles, but outside of the realm of narrow preferences and staunch subjectivity, I recognize that the Beatles met the criteria of being a 'legendary' band. But I wonder exactly whom defined that criteria to begin with. In this respect, I have issue with the Smiths being considered legendary, for they never made the grade or tried to please anybody. No matter how popular they get, the Smiths will always be consider on the cusps of the commercial world and complete outsiders. A few features on indie film soundtracks is not going to change that for me...

I don't think trying to please is a criteria for legendary status - I think musical genius is. "Legendary indie band" are the words that usually come just before "The Smiths" just as "indie icon" comes just before "Morrissey." It's interesting to watch this process happen, because of course we weren't thinking "legendary" back in the day, we just thought we were onto something unlike anything else happening at the time.

Oh and I wanted to ask this as well-- what exactly could Morrissey have done more? I am very interested in your response, probably because in some respect, I agree with your assertion.

This site is a wonderful place to monitor what Morrissey fans think he could have done better. Personally, I think he could have handled the animal rights issue with a bit more aplomb, and been a bit more constructive in his actions. "Meat is Murder" is a great example of what a musician can accomplish through their craft, but his subsequent actions (or lack thereof - Canada comes to mind) may have done more harm than good.

Others have other gripes, but I think that Morrissey has conducted himself in an exemplary way in many respects; he is such a singular person under such singular circumstances that it's not for me to find fault. Those cancellations do tend to stick in the craw, though...

[Happy Maudlin]

Yes the animal rights issue is something that Morrissey fumbled on, both recently and in the past. He serves as a catalyst sometimes...honestly I don't know what Morrissey's purpose is in social/political activism. He makes songs like Meat is Murder, and doesn't move beyond the usual inflammatory remark and most of the remarks come from good intention I suppose. I wonder if he's more concerned with expressing himself, rather than expressing any compassionate or well-informed position.

[Amy]

I don't think he believes this. He has actually said, explicitly, Smiths songs are his songs.

In his heart of hearts he knows Johnny was the one true genius he's worked with, and he may still love the guy even after all this time, but up top, in the larger portion of his brain, as far as I can tell, no, he doesn't believe The Smiths songs are anyone's but his.

Really, really got to disagree with you here. Morrissey has always given Marr the credit he deserves when discussing the Smiths - for starting the band, "unearthing" him from his bedroom, creating the soundscapes for him to work with etc - and if we're thinking of the same quote then what he actually said was, "They [the songs] are as much mine as they are anyone else's", i.e. they belong equally to him and Johnny. I actually find it quite absurd to suggest that he would try to take ownership away from Marr.

[Maurice E]

Really, really got to disagree with you here. Morrissey has always given Marr the credit he deserves when discussing the Smiths - for starting the band, "unearthing" him from his bedroom, creating the soundscapes for him to work with etc - and if we're thinking of the same quote then what he actually said was, "They [the songs] are as much mine as they are anyone else's", i.e. they belong equally to him and Johnny. I actually find it quite absurd to suggest that he would try to take ownership away from Marr.

quite right - Moz has, generally, been very generous towards J Marr in his credit for the songs they wrote together. even in the late 90s, when he won an Ivor Novello award, he dedicated it to Marr, despite having collaborated with Whyte/Boorer on tons of songs by that point. I think he's also said that Marr hasn't been replaced.
it's when people question why he plays Smiths songs, that he says stuff like 'they're my songs' but he obviously doesn't mean 'mine and mine alone'. it's a perfectly rational and fair attitude. Morrissey's co-written songs with loads of musicians over the years - if he's going to still play songs written by Whyte, Nevin, Armstrong, Street etc (who are not in his current band), why should it be such a big deal that he performs songs written by Marr.

[Maurice E]

[QUOTE=Worm;1986677538]Well, I think that's precisely his own thinking. What, indeed, is the difference? Only this: 100% of a small Solo pie is worth more than a much larger Smiths pie split with one, two, or three other lawnmower parts. Also: no percentage of any pie would pay the cost to replace the damage to his pride. QUOTE]

Except, he doesn't get 100% of the 'solo' live fee - he obviously pays the musicians, but perhaps not as equally as if it was the Smiths (although I've no idea how the fees get distributed).
The pride thing is obviously important. The other issue that people frequently overlook is that Marr hates Joyce Michael almost as much as Morrissey does (i.e. quite a lot!).

[Maurice E]

Okay. How about: "Few musical artists continue to thrive after leaving behind the band with which they originally found success".

Yes - spot on! Although I'm always keen to point out that Morrissey isn't really a solo artist, I still think he deserves huge amounts of credit for finding other (largely unknown) people to write songs with, getting a live band together etc.
Even though the recent stuff is relatively patchy, it's great to hear him play new songs and not be content to become a nostalgia act.

[Black Cloud]

I can't vote in this poll because there's no option for "other."

[Peterb]

I can't vote in this poll because there's no option for "other."

I can't vote in this poll as I simply have no idea.

[Andrewroon]

I just was on Rollingstone.com and the 2012 Rock Hall inductees have been posted, and, alas, The Smiths are absent once again. We have Guns n Roses, the Cure, Red Hot Chili Peppers and a few others. The Smiths will be like Black Sabbath and will be inducted 20 years after they were initially eligible. Getting int The Hall won't validate anything to any fans of The Smiths, it would simply be nice to see them honored when bands that shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath are already in.

[DAVIE]

whey The Smiths win!!

[cjr67]

The Rolling Stones . . . ?